Why Did God Plan for the Fall of Man?

[Josheb]

Sounds like you are saying God caused Satan to fall and was involved in making him fall....

Yes. There is nothing that happens but by God's decree (plan). But he uses means to accomplish it.

What is the difference between saying God caused the fall, and God caused satan to fall? Similarly, what is the difference between saying God caused the fall and God caused Adam to fall? And what is the difference between saying God caused satan to fall and God caused Adam to fall if the same cause (God) results in the occurrence of sin?

• God caused the fall.
• God caused satan's fall.
• God caused Adam's fall.

All three premises make God the cause of the fall. If the word "fall" is intended to mean "fall from grace into sin," or "fall from sinlessness into sinfulness" then all three make God the cause of sin and sinfulness.

Clarify the difference. Use complete sentences. Stay on topic (because a number of the posts contain unnecessary petty comments about the posters and I'll have one of the mods edit the thread if it continues). I also recommend reviewing the thread because much of this has already been covered (like the difference between planning the fall and planning for the fall).





What is the difference between God causing the fall, God causing satan's fall, and/or God causing Adam's fall if all three result in the same outcome: God causing sin's occurrence?


.

 

[Arial]

What is the difference between saying God caused the fall, and God caused satan to fall? Similarly, what is the difference between saying God caused the fall and God caused Adam to fall? And what is the difference between saying God caused satan to fall and God caused Adam to fall if the same cause (God) results in the occurrence of sin?

• God caused the fall.
• God caused satan's fall.
• God caused Adam's fall.

All three premises make God the cause of the fall. If the word "fall" is intended to mean "fall from grace into sin," or "fall from sinlessness into sinfulness" then all three make God the cause of sin and sinfulness.

Clarify the difference. Use complete sentences. Stay on topic (because a number of the posts contain unnecessary petty comments about the posters and I'll have one of the mods edit the thread if it continues). I also recommend reviewing the thread because much of this has already been covered (like the difference between planning the fall and planning for the fall).





What is the difference between God causing the fall, God causing satan's fall, and/or God causing Adam's fall if all three result in the same outcome: God causing sin's occurrence?


.

He didn't cause any fall. Both Satan and man were created as responsible creatures, and their responsibility was to Him.

Funny how man's free will is held in such high regards when it comes to man having a free choice in determining his destination---heaven or hell---- saying that if he did not then God is responsible for their going to hell unless He saved everyone. Or that if was not a free choice (free of all obstacles of impediment) then God would be forcing some to believe. Then are willing to turn around and say we didn't fall of our own free will but God caused us to fall. Mostly we are just careless with the words that we use.

 

[GeneZ]

What is the difference between saying God caused the fall, and God caused satan to fall? Similarly, what is the difference between saying God caused the fall and God caused Adam to fall? And what is the difference between saying God caused satan to fall and God caused Adam to fall if the same cause (God) results in the occurrence of sin?

• God caused the fall.
• God caused satan's fall.
• God caused Adam's fall.

All three premises make God the cause of the fall. If the word "fall" is intended to mean "fall from grace into sin," or "fall from sinlessness into sinfulness" then all three make God the cause of sin and sinfulness.

Clarify the difference. Use complete sentences. Stay on topic (because a number of the posts contain unnecessary petty comments about the posters and I'll have one of the mods edit the thread if it continues). I also recommend reviewing the thread because much of this has already been covered (like the difference between planning the fall and planning for the fall).





What is the difference between God causing the fall, God causing satan's fall, and/or God causing Adam's fall if all three result in the same outcome: God causing sin's occurrence?


.

Are you implying that God is the cause for all sin and evil?

That he created us with a time bomb in our DNA that will turn evil at a designated time?

 

[Josheb]

He didn't cause any fall. Both Satan and man were created as responsible creatures, and their responsibility was to Him.

I completely agree.

More importantly, The orthodox Protestant position isn't different than the RCC or Orthodox pov when it comes to God as the cause of sin. The specifically Reformed position is unequivocally articulated in Article 3.1 of the WCF = God is NOT the author of sin. Sin occurred and continues to occur by a personal choice and action of the individual will.

Funny how man's free will is held in such high regards when it comes to man having a free choice in determining his destination---heaven or hell---- saying that if he did not then God is responsible for their going to hell unless He saved everyone. Or that if was not a free choice (free of all obstacles of impediment) then God would be forcing some to believe. Then are willing to turn around and say we didn't fall of our own free will but God caused us to fall. Mostly we are just careless with the words that we use.

Welll...

I'm inclined to take issue with the use of the word "free," because scripture never uses the term "free will" to mean anyone is completely autonomous and logic precludes such a premise. That being said, everyone in this thread appears to agree humans have liberty to choose and act as they want, even if that want is limited by temporal conditions. Personally, I think the thread is off its tracks because the op stipulates "plan for" and not simply "plan," "intend," or "cause." Those are four completely different paradigms (ones I endeavored to address much earlier in the thread) that should not be conflated. Just as personally, I do not find it necessary to say God did any of the four, and that premise seems alien to the op (based on the responses my posts received.

There are five, not four, options:

• God's plan for creation wasn't bothered in the slightest by the occurrence of sin so no need for any contingency was necessary and His plan proceeds as plans already possessing the conditions necessary to address everything and anything that might ever occur in creation.
• God's plan specifically planned for the occurrence of sin. It is a contingency just in case sin occurs because God knew it would occur, so He had to have and did make a plan for it.
• God's plan planned sin. Sin is part of the plan. The Law Maker planned lawlessness and the Perfect One planned imperfection.
• God's plan actively intended sin to occur. The Law Maker not only planned lawlessness, He intended it.
• God and His plan caused sin. The Law Maker did not just plan, plan for, and intend lawlessness and imperfection; He caused it.

Therefore, it would be my position that much of the debate that has ensued for a couple of millennia is a red herring. There is a way to read scripture that makes the premise upon which this op's question is founded irrational at a presuppositional level. The faulty presupposition being God's plan is bothered by the occurrence of sin. What if that's incorrect? What if it was not assumed from the outset, "God's plan has a problem with sin"?

Sin is a problem for humans, not God. The only reason the debates like the ones in this thread exist is because of an anthropomorphic influence and the irony of that is that it itself is sinful. Human will is irrelevant and God did not plan for the fall of man because it is inconsequential to His achieving His purpose for creation. God's purpose was to glorify Himself and He is glorified whether creatures' sin or not because He is glorified as a gracious when He saves some and He is glorified as a just God when He metes out the just recompense for sin, and neither interferes with His objective to make eternally worshipful adopted sons and daughters who are raised incorruptible and immortal. The Creator did not cause sin. Creatures did.


Occam's razor .

 

[Josheb]

Are you implying that God is the cause for all sin and evil?

No

That he created us with a time bomb in our DNA that will turn evil at a designated time?

No

 

[Arial]

I completely agree.

More importantly, The orthodox Protestant position isn't different than the RCC or Orthodox pov when it comes to God as the cause of sin. The specifically Reformed position is unequivocally articulated in Article 3.1 of the WCF = God is NOT the author of sin. Sin occurred and continues to occur by a personal choice and action of the individual will.

Welll...

I'm inclined to take issue with the use of the word "free," because scripture never uses the term "free will" to mean anyone is completely autonomous and logic precludes such a premise. That being said, everyone in this thread appears to agree humans have liberty to choose and act as they want, even if that want is limited by temporal conditions. Personally, I think the thread is off its tracks because the op stipulates "plan for" and not simply "plan," "intend," or "cause." Those are four completely different paradigms (ones I endeavored to address much earlier in the thread) that should not be conflated. Just as personally, I do not find it necessary to say God did any of the four, and that premise seems alien to the op (based on the responses my posts received.

There are five, not four, options:

• God's plan for creation wasn't bothered in the slightest by the occurrence of sin so no need for any contingency was necessary and His plan proceeds as plans already possessing the conditions necessary to address everything and anything that might ever occur in creation.
• God's plan specifically planned for the occurrence of sin. It is a contingency just in case sin occurs because God knew it would occur, so He had to have and did make a plan for it.
• God's plan planned sin. Sin is part of the plan. The Law Maker planned lawlessness and the Perfect One planned imperfection.
• God's plan actively intended sin to occur. The Law Maker not only planned lawlessness, He intended it.
• God and His plan caused sin. The Law Maker did not just plan, plan for, and intend lawlessness and imperfection; He caused it.

Therefore, it would be my position that much of the debate that has ensued for a couple of millennia is a red herring. There is a way to read scripture that makes the premise upon which this op's question is founded irrational at a presuppositional level. The faulty presupposition being God's plan is bothered by the occurrence of sin. What if that's incorrect? What if it was not assumed from the outset, "God's plan has a problem with sin"?

Sin is a problem for humans, not God. The only reason the debates like the ones in this thread exist is because of an anthropomorphic influence and the irony of that is that it itself is sinful. Human will is irrelevant and God did not plan for the fall of man because it is inconsequential to His achieving His purpose for creation. God's purpose was to glorify Himself and He is glorified whether creatures' sin or not because He is glorified as a gracious when He saves some and He is glorified as a just God when He metes out the just recompense for sin, and neither interferes with His objective to make eternally worshipful adopted sons and daughters who are raised incorruptible and immortal. The Creator did not cause sin. Creatures did.


Occam's razor .

There is another scenario that may come into play, and that we will never have the answer to, at least not while we reside in this fallen world and in our corruptible bodies, bound within time and space, with minds that are finite and cannot apprehend the infinite. We can know what He tells us in that regard, and nothing more.

It is said in covenant theology that the covenant (not plan) of redemption was established within the Trinity before God ever created this world. That it is that covenant agreement with Father, Son, and Holy Spirit concerning redemption of mankind and the creation itself through them, as to what the Son would come and do, and the active work of the Holy Spirit both before and after one is redeemed. The beginning and the end.

This suggests that God certainly knew man would fall before He created us, and the covenant to redeem us was already in play. It is wrong to consider it a plan of redemption in any way shape or form, it is a covenant, and it is a covenant with a purpose. We see the result. We were born into the kingdom of darkness, born in Adam, imprisoned there, and Jesus came to our rescue. Absolutely, it is all about and for the glory of God.

The unanswerable question is, what went on in the spiritual realm before God created the earth and all that is in it? Did the serpent of old challenge God? Was it part of a war that is still ongoing of satan thinking he can have a kingdom of his own where he is god? Or was it something else? We don't know. But no matter what it was, or whether or not it was anything at all other than God creating and spreading His glory into a new world that He created, it was always and ever about Him and His glory. We were made for Him. He was not made for us.

So I would answer the OP question; He neither planned for the fall, or planned the fall. He does not plan. He has no need of planning anything. He speaks and a thing is done. The Trinity covenanted with His creation and all that He puts in it, and all that He removes from it. The plan is not the issue. The purpose is the issue.

 

[Josheb]

There is another scenario that may come into play, and that we will never have the answer to, at least not while we reside in this fallen world and in our corruptible bodies, bound within time and space, with minds that are finite and cannot apprehend the infinite. We can know what He tells us in that regard, and nothing more.

It is said in covenant theology that the covenant (not plan) of redemption was established within the Trinity before God ever created this world. That it is that covenant agreement with Father, Son, and Holy Spirit concerning redemption of mankind and the creation itself through them, as to what the Son would come and do, and the active work of the Holy Spirit both before and after one is redeemed. The beginning and the end.

This suggests that God certainly knew man would fall before He created us, and the covenant to redeem us was already in play. It is wrong to consider it a plan of redemption in any way shape or form, it is a covenant, and it is a covenant with a purpose. We see the result. We were born into the kingdom of darkness, born in Adam, imprisoned there, and Jesus came to our rescue. Absolutely, it is all about and for the glory of God.

The unanswerable question is, what went on in the spiritual realm before God created the earth and all that is in it? Did the serpent of old challenge God? Was it part of a war that is still ongoing of satan thinking he can have a kingdom of his own where he is god? Or was it something else? We don't know. But no matter what it was, or whether or not it was anything at all other than God creating and spreading His glory into a new world that He created, it was always and ever about Him and His glory. We were made for Him. He was not made for us.

So I would answer the OP question; He neither planned for the fall, or planned the fall. He does not plan. He has no need of planning anything. He speaks and a thing is done. The Trinity covenanted with His creation and all that He puts in it, and all that He removes from it. The plan is not the issue. The purpose is the issue.

Yes, that is certainly a position consistent with Covenant Theology but therein lies a potential problem: God, and God's plan, being dependent upon sin. This has to be avoided. Some means avoiding the dependency on sin's occurrence must exist, otherwise God's omni-attributes are compromised. We know the Trinitarian "covenant" or some sort of omniscient foreknowledge existed/exists because of 1 Peter 1:20. Jesus was always going to come. He was always going to die. He was always going to die specifically as a perfect sacrifice. It's an assumption that sacrifice necessarily had to do solely for sin. It's a problem of presuppositional onlyism.

I'd say more but the misses is calling. We've got plans together. Gotta go.

 

[Arial]

Yes, that is certainly a position consistent with Covenant Theology but therein lies a potential problem: God, and God's plan, being dependent upon sin. This has to be avoided. Some means avoiding the dependency on sin's occurrence must exist, otherwise God's omni-attributes are compromised. We know the Trinitarian "covenant" or some sort of omniscient foreknowledge existed/exists because of 1 Peter 1:20. Jesus was always going to come. He was always going to die. He was always going to die specifically as a perfect sacrifice. It's an assumption that sacrifice necessarily had to do solely for sin. It's a problem of presuppositional onlyism.

I'd say more but the misses is calling. We've got plans together. Gotta go.

I don't know. I don't have the answer to that and I know of know way of finding the answer inside of my mind---or anyone else's, that would amount to verifiable fact. It is in the hidden, secret, things of God. We know God decreed that Adam would be the federal head of all mankind. I think we can agree that given man is a being who makes choices, sooner or later someone would have disobeyed Him. So there must be a sense in which God decreed that it would be Adam. Otherwise there would be no way for a Savior to save by substitution, and once for all.

So we know what we know from what He tells us, and reveals in His word. And that is all we need to know to bring about His purposes. As you said earlier. It is not about us, it is about Him. There is more than meets the eye. Hence, the need for faith and trust in Him.

We do know, particularly from Revelation where we are given the view in the spiritual realm, that a cosmic power struggle is going on, the outcome of which is never in question. I tend to think the answer to this dilemma lies in there, and long before the creation of our world and us, and it is not for us to see.

 

[GeneZ]

No

No

Good.

 

[GeneZ]

Sin is a problem for humans, not God. The only reason the debates like the ones in this thread exist is because of an anthropomorphic influence and the irony of that is that it itself is sinful. Human will is irrelevant and God did not plan for the fall of man because it is inconsequential to His achieving His purpose for creation. God's purpose was to glorify Himself and He is glorified whether creatures' sin or not because He is glorified as a gracious when He saves some and He is glorified as a just God when He metes out the just recompense for sin, and neither interferes with His objective to make eternally worshipful adopted sons and daughters who are raised incorruptible and immortal. The Creator did not cause sin. Creatures did.


Occam's razor .

Try making sense.

Occam's razor?

God is not working with bites that He turned into a glorious video game for His own pleasure.

Human will is irrelevant and God

If human will were irrelevant?
Then God lied when He said...

"Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness,.....”​

You've been in too much of a hurry to resolve this.

 

[makesends]

What is the difference between saying God caused the fall, and God caused satan to fall? Similarly, what is the difference between saying God caused the fall and God caused Adam to fall? And what is the difference between saying God caused satan to fall and God caused Adam to fall if the same cause (God) results in the occurrence of sin?

• God caused the fall.
• God caused satan's fall.
• God caused Adam's fall.

All three premises make God the cause of the fall. If the word "fall" is intended to mean "fall from grace into sin," or "fall from sinlessness into sinfulness" then all three make God the cause of sin and sinfulness.

All three premises make God a cause. I would not term that, THE cause. He certainly is not the only cause in the sequence of cause and effect.

Generally, "the cause" is a reference to the direct cause, which God is not.

Whether I am clear or not, I usually mean that God intended whatsoever comes to pass, and that he is not merely reactive to whatsoever should by chance come about.

Clarify the difference. Use complete sentences. Stay on topic (because a number of the posts contain unnecessary petty comments about the posters and I'll have one of the mods edit the thread if it continues). I also recommend reviewing the thread because much of this has already been covered (like the difference between planning the fall and planning for the fall).

Even threads that I have started myself, I don't often have the time to read or review the whole thing. Not only that, but the fact something has already been covered doesn't mean that it needs no further discussion.

What is the difference between God causing the fall, God causing satan's fall, and/or God causing Adam's fall if all three result in the same outcome: God causing sin's occurrence?

That seems to me the same way of thinking as above, where "all three premises make God THE cause of the fall" (My caps). There is a difference in USE, if not in meaning, between the three, even if all three produce the same logical conclusion.

People have the habit of thinking that their words are substantive. We find ourselves parsing carefully, lest someone misunderstand what we are trying to say; sometimes we do so to the degree that the words appear to begin losing meaning. That phenomenon doesn't mean, as mockers want it to, that we don't have a valid point, but that our communication isn't complete. —But, whatever, it is rather obvious, logically (and Biblically), that God causing that sin be, is for his purposes, and with him as the Lord over even that.

 

[Josheb]

I don't know. I don't have the answer to that and I know of know way of finding the answer inside of my mind---or anyone else's, that would amount to verifiable fact. It is in the hidden, secret, things of God.

I believe the case I posted does so. It is a view firmly couched in scripture.

We know God decreed that Adam would be the federal head of all mankind.

Yep

I think we can agree that given man is a being who makes choices, sooner or later someone would have disobeyed Him.

Yep

Largely immaterial, though. This is what I mean when I say sin is not a problem for God. The Creator is not dependent upon the creature. If there is a reason for his entrance into creation, life, death, resurrection and ascension in addition to or apart from sin then sin can be viewed as an event unrelated to the other purpose(s).

So there must be a sense in which God decreed that it would be Adam. Otherwise there would be no way for a Savior to save by substitution, and once for all.

What if the Savior's work was not solely dependent upon the existence of sin? What if, as I have suggested, sin is inconsequential to a much, much larger purpose Jesus serves? What if Jesus was always going to come just because humans were made mortal and corruptible? What if the original goal - always existent from the beginning whether anyone ever disobeyed or not - was to make creature who were incorruptible and immortal?

A corruptible mortal person need not become corrupted in order to become incorruptible and immortal.

Nowhere does scripture state a person MUST sin.

This is important because if the entire human race past, present, and future had never disobeyed God 1 Peter 1:20 would still be true. This gets right to the heart of the issue asserted in this opening post. If sin is the only reason for the incarnation and humans never disobey then no incarnation is needed, Jesus never comes, and he CANNOT be foreknown as the perfect sacrifice..... unless his sacrifice has purpose additional to and apart from sin. Conversely, if the ONLY reason for Jesus being foreknown is sin, then we're immediately back to the necessity of sin and the dependency of God (and Christ) on sin for the foreknowledge to have relevance, for God and His plan to have purpose. Huge problems ensue the moment Jesus' purpose is limited to or conditioned solely upon sin.

The way out of all those conundrums is simple: God has a purpose for creation that is not dependent at all, in any shape or form, to any degree miniscule or great, on sin. Sin is simply an event all already covered by a plan and purpose for which God did not need to make a contingency. He does not need a plan for the fall because the fall isn't a problem for Him (or those He is making incorruptible and immortal).

So we know what we know from what He tells us, and reveals in His word.

Yes, and He tells us.....

• Humans are made good, unashamed, and sinless.
• Humans do not have to sin.
• Humans are made corruptible, not already corrupted.
• Humans are made mortal.
• Humans have limited volitional agency.
• Some humans will one day be made incorruptible and immortal.
• Other humans will be destroyed (however one construes the scripture to define that).
• Jesus was foreknown as the perfect sacrifice.
• Jesus is the life, the resurrection, and the only means by which anyone comes to God (including sinless man).

And it's that last line that is usually neglected. Because the still good, unashamed, and sinless Adam and Eve living prior to Genesis 3:6-7 were corruptible and mortal, they needed the tree of life. The tree of life is the necessity, not the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Jesus, the tree of life, is the only way even for those who have not sinned. He is not the life only for those dead in transgression. NO ONE, not even the sinless person, can come to God apart from Christ. John 3:18 applies to Pre-disobedient Adam and Eve just as much as it does post-disobedient Adam and Eve. I do not care how good and sinless a person is, if they are not calling upon the name of Christ they stand already condemned.

John 3:16-21
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through him. He who believes in him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. This is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light, for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the light and does not come to the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But he who practices the truth comes to the light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.

That part about believing on the Son applies just as much to the pre-disobedient, still-good, still-unashamed, still-sinless Adam as it does to the not-good, ashamed, sinful Adam. Adam did not have any disobedient deeds to be exposed prior to Gen. 3:6-7 but he did have the choice to choose the tree of life over the other tree's fruit and he did not call upon that tree. Had he done so he'd come to the light. His deeds would be seen to have been wrought in God.

Sin is not necessary for humans to partake of Christ.

We were once good, unashamed, and sinless and expected to eat from the tree of life. Being corruptible we disobeyed God and in that act all humanity was corrupted. Having previously been corruptible, we than became corrupted. There is a huge difference between the two. Onto that difference is added our removal from the tree of life's presence and access. The tree of life was foreknown as the perfect blemish free sacrifice. He has always been the way, the truth, the life, and the only means by which anyone comes to the Father (and no one can come to Christ unless the Father drags him/her there).

If God is immutable (and He is immutable), then not a single iota of this is a contingency. God is not out there thinking, "What if.....?" Oh! I guess I ought to make a plan for that!" That is why, imo, this op fails.

And that is all we need to know to bring about His purposes.

I disagree. I think there is a lot that is made known in scripture that is ignored in the typical discussion of God planning for the fall.

As you said earlier. It is not about us, it is about Him. There is more than meets the eye. Hence, the need for faith and trust in Him.

Even the good, unashamed, sinless, pre-disobedient Adam (and Eve) needed faith and trust in Christ (even if he hadn't yet been emptied himself, taken on the form of a bondservant, and found in the appearance of a man). He is needed in order to have life and solve the problem of corruptible and mortal. He existed as a tree from which they were supposed to eat to find life even before a single act of disobedience occurred, long before sin had entered the world. Jesus's purpose in creation is not dependent upon the existence of sin. When a fruit is removed from its tree it dies. Its seeds, if planted will grow and produce more fruit, more trees, more fruit, more trees, etc. Sin kills.

So too does the tree of life because only in the resurrection is one raised incorruptible and immortal. It is appointed for humans to live once, and then face judgment. There's no qualifier in Hebr. 9:27 saying only sinful man dies once. Man was made mortal.

No contingency plan is needed for the fall.

 

[Josheb]

We do know, particularly from Revelation where we are given the view in the spiritual realm, that a cosmic power struggle is going on, the outcome of which is never in question. I tend to think the answer to this dilemma lies in there, and long before the creation of our world and us, and it is not for us to see.

I'm not going there because there is no need to limit the answer to the question of this op to just one book of the Bible. Neither is there any reason to limit the answer to soteriology or eschatology. A bad Theology and/or Christology is going to lead to errors in everything else, including any answer to the question asked in this op.

No separate, special, or dedicated plan for the fall is needed because God and His plan for creation is unaffected by sin. There are no contingencies for an omni-attributed immutable God. Adam eats the forbidden kiwi and God says, "Meh." He tells Adam, "That's going to be a problem for you, Adam, but it's not a problem for Me," and proceeds onward with His original unadjusted plan because that plan has not been adversely impacted at all. Jesus is still coming into creation just as he was always going to do. He lives and dies and is resurrected and ascends exactly as he was always going to do. Those who place their faith in him are going to be raised incorruptible and immortal whether or not the ever sin or not because Jesus is the only way any corruptible and mortal human is ever raised incorruptible and immortal. A plan for the fall is not needed.


Assuming a plan for the fall is needed is where the op first failed. In this particular case, it is a presuppositional failure, a foundational error that should not have been treated as a given.

 

[Josheb]

The opportunity to discuss all of this was provided many pages ago and comments like the one below were chronic and unrepentant.

Try making sense.

Nothing has changed.

Do not expect me to reply to anything you post in this thread until amends are made.

Titus 3:9-11
But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.

Keep the posts about the posts and not the posters.

 

[Josheb]

All three premises make God a cause. I would not term that, THE cause. He certainly is not the only cause in the sequence of cause and effect.

Generally, "the cause" is a reference to the direct cause, which God is not.

Whether I am clear or not, I usually mean that God intended whatsoever comes to pass, and that he is not merely reactive to whatsoever should by chance come about.

Even threads that I have started myself, I don't often have the time to read or review the whole thing. Not only that, but the fact something has already been covered doesn't mean that it needs no further discussion.

That seems to me the same way of thinking as above, where "all three premises make God THE cause of the fall" (My caps). There is a difference in USE, if not in meaning, between the three, even if all three produce the same logical conclusion.

People have the habit of thinking that their words are substantive. We find ourselves parsing carefully, lest someone misunderstand what we are trying to say; sometimes we do so to the degree that the words appear to begin losing meaning. That phenomenon doesn't mean, as mockers want it to, that we don't have a valid point, but that our communication isn't complete. —But, whatever, it is rather obvious, logically (and Biblically), that God causing that sin be, is for his purposes, and with him as the Lord over even that.

I'm not reading anything in Post 291 that hasn't already been addressed.

The classic Reformed position is found IN WCF 3.1 where we find it plainly stated God ordained all things from eternity without authoring sin, without doing violence to human volition and without doing violence to the contingencies of secondary causes. Secondary causes are implicitly asserted. So too are their contingencies.

That has nothing to do with the premise God had a plan for the fall. God did not need a plan for the fall. The premise begs itself. Stop assuming a plan is needed and the question of whether or not one existed never occurs. The fall, in Reformed vernacular, is a secondary cause with its own consequences and contingencies to which God did no violence. God's plan for creation proceeds exactly as planned from the beginning whether or not sin ever occurs. It proceeds no matter what humans choose. God's not doing violence to any of it. All secondary causes can and do exist without influencing God's pre-existent plan for creation one bit. He needs no pre-existent contingency for the contingencies of secondary causes.


The entire premise upon which "Why did God plan for the fall of man?" is asked is faulty at its own foundation.

• God did not plan for the fall.
• God did not plan the fall.
• God's plan has not been affected in any way by any human action.
• God has no need to plan the fall, and no need to plan for the fall.

God has other plans . Once the omni-attributed sovereign immutability of God is acknowledged those four statements are axiomatic.

 

[Arial]

I believe the case I posted does so. It is a view firmly couched in scripture.

Here is what you posted, just to keep the conversation organized.

Yes, that is certainly a position consistent with Covenant Theology but therein lies a potential problem: God, and God's plan, being dependent upon sin. This has to be avoided. Some means avoiding the dependency on sin's occurrence must exist, otherwise God's omni-attributes are compromised. We know the Trinitarian "covenant" or some sort of omniscient foreknowledge existed/exists because of 1 Peter 1:20. Jesus was always going to come. He was always going to die. He was always going to die specifically as a perfect sacrifice. It's an assumption that sacrifice necessarily had to do solely for sin. It's a problem of presuppositional onlyism.

Which was a response to this:

The unanswerable question is, what went on in the spiritual realm before God created the earth and all that is in it? Did the serpent of old challenge God? Was it part of a war that is still ongoing of satan thinking he can have a kingdom of his own where he is god? Or was it something else? We don't know. But no matter what it was, or whether or not it was anything at all other than God creating and spreading His glory into a new world that He created, it was always and ever about Him and His glory. We were made for Him. He was not made for us.

How does your post above answer the question of what went on in the spiritual realm before God----? I think it is a presupposition to assume that Christ came for any other reason than to atone for sin. The Bible unequivocally tells us that is why He came. What else would He be sacrificing Himself for? He came into our world as one of us to do something for us----become perfect righteousness for us so He could be our substitute. For the glory of God. What you put forth avoids answering the question of sin and why it was allowed into His creation from the beginning with Adam, by saying Christ would have come and died as a sacrifice whether sin existed or not. A statement of pure speculation unless there is something that supports it biblically that you are not saying.

And indeed what I said was pure speculation but it did come from what we do have in the Bible, and I recognized it and stated it as speculation as a part of my original statement "I don't know. No one does as it is hidden from us. Anything anyone comes up with is speculation as to why God created Adam knowing he would sin and all of creation with him, some more valid than others, but none provable as to certainty as His reasons remain in His mind, unattainable by us---and frankly forbidden.

The answer to the OP question is He did not "plan" for the fall. Such a statement implies that He operates in contengicies. When He created the heavens and the earth He created it perfect. Obviously He never intended that it would remain that way. If you want to know why, ask Him. He might say, "My grace is sufficient for you."

 

[Arial]

Largely immaterial, though. This is what I mean when I say sin is not a problem for God. The Creator is not dependent upon the creature. If there is a reason for his entrance into creation, life, death, resurrection and ascension in addition to or apart from sin then sin can be viewed as an event unrelated to the other purpose(s).

I have not said that sin is a problem for God . Any reason for His entrance into creation that is not stated in the scriptures remains hidden from us. It would be in those places He has not allowed us to peer into. His life, death, resurrection and ascension pertains to us and our condition imprisoned in the kingdom of darkness by our sin, and these are the things that we are told. He came to rescue some from this kingdom and translate them into the kingdom of the Son---the household of God. It would be through this that any other first purposes or reasons are achieved. Such as---or all things --- the glory and power and supremacy of God over all spiritual forces of darkness, an utter defeat of them, and the restoration of the creation through the redemption of people.

What if the Savior's work was not solely dependent upon the existence of sin? What if, as I have suggested, sin is inconsequential to a much, much larger purpose Jesus serves? What if Jesus was always going to come just because humans were made mortal and corruptible? What if the original goal - always existent from the beginning whether anyone ever disobeyed or not - was to make creature who were incorruptible and immortal?

The battle is not ours but the Lord's. The Saviors work is not dependant upon anything but His work is dealing directly with sin. Sin is the devil's only weapon that separates people from God.

Humans were made corruptible----that is able to be corrupted-----but they were not made corrupt. And when and if they became corrupt, which they did through disobedience, then they also became mortal---subject to certain death. He could have made us incorruptible and immortal at creation. So we are back to the question---why didn't He? And even it that was the long range purpose in Jesus coming, the eternal purpose, which it is, it is the corruption and its cause---sin--that Christ came to abolish. In your scenario, at least without having it fleshed out, so on the surface, we have God creating something imperfect in order to recreate it perfect as the primary purpose of Jesus coming.

I need a break. Back soon.

 

[makesends]

I'm not reading anything in Post 291 that hasn't already been addressed.

The classic Reformed position is found IN WCF 3.1 where we find it plainly stated God ordained all things from eternity without authoring sin, without doing violence to human volition and without doing violence to the contingencies of secondary causes. Secondary causes are implicitly asserted. So too are their contingencies.

That has nothing to do with the premise God had a plan for the fall. God did not need a plan for the fall. The premise begs itself. Stop assuming a plan is needed and the question of whether or not one existed never occurs. The fall, in Reformed vernacular, is a secondary cause with its own consequences and contingencies to which God did no violence. God's plan for creation proceeds exactly as planned from the beginning whether or not sin ever occurs. It proceeds no matter what humans choose. God's not doing violence to any of it. All secondary causes can and do exist without influencing God's pre-existent plan for creation one bit. He needs no pre-existent contingency for the contingencies of secondary causes.


The entire premise upon which "Why did God plan for the fall of man?" is asked is faulty at its own foundation.

• God did not plan for the fall.
• God did not plan the fall.
• God's plan has not been affected in any way by any human action.
• God has no need to plan the fall, and no need to plan for the fall.

God has other plans . Once the omni-attributed sovereign immutability of God is acknowledged those four statements are axiomatic.

Not sure 'axiomatic' is the right word. They are superfluous.

God needs nothing. I'm not sure why you are arguing the point. These particulars, nuances, implications and so on, come from OUR concepts of things about which we are ignorant, in who/what God is. WE are the ones needing to parse words, when you and I probably agree completely on who God is. Where did I assume a plan was needed? The construction is merely a human description of what we seem to have to put a handle on, in order to discuss it.

You present a hypothetical, (and maybe it wasn't you originally, but you are dealing with it), as though such and such could have happened and what is or isn't implied, when the whole question is bogus. God didn't, so why go there? It proves nothing. Even the word, "plan", misleads, because we infer from it that God considers, and compares options, etc etc, like we do. He is not like us. For him to think is the same as for him to do. We call it "plan" because we see it unfolding and know he is the original willed cause of it.

We don't KNOW that it wasn't necessary, we don't KNOW he could have done differently with the same result. We do know that this is what he did, and we know the reason for it was the ends he had "planned".

I'm hoping you can provide me with a logical proof, besides by scripture and besides by the usual proofs, (such as that if God knew-yet-created-anyway, he intended all of it; or the argument to the pervasiveness of cause-and-effect), or maybe you can at least provide me a better way to describe: That logically, if God began it, it all, in every detail, was intended specifically, to the smallest existing particle, fact and motion. And yes, that, "yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established." I have many specific proofs, good enough for myself, but apparently I can't write them down where they make sense to others.

 

[GeneZ]

Did God really cause the Fall?

Or, did God not prevent the choices made by Adam and Satan which resulted in the Fall?

Stop running away and trying to hide in a chamber of over complexity.

 

[makesends]

Yes, that is certainly a position consistent with Covenant Theology but therein lies a potential problem: God, and God's plan, being dependent upon sin. This has to be avoided. Some means avoiding the dependency on sin's occurrence must exist, otherwise God's omni-attributes are compromised. We know the Trinitarian "covenant" or some sort of omniscient foreknowledge existed/exists because of 1 Peter 1:20. Jesus was always going to come. He was always going to die. He was always going to die specifically as a perfect sacrifice. It's an assumption that sacrifice necessarily had to do solely for sin. It's a problem of presuppositional onlyism.

I'd say more but the misses is calling. We've got plans together. Gotta go.

Not that Jesus wasn't speaking with our use of language, and to our need to put handles on concepts, and to our weak minds, but: "Such things must come..." (Matt 18:7)

I've been pretty much excoriated for suggesting that the way God did things is the only way it could have been done, to produce the effect he "planned" to effect. We don't know all the nuances as to why, but to me, a hypothetical in such matters is useless. It is akin to the Arminian claiming that someone could actually have chosen what they did not, as though God's predetermining does not establish, but rather violates the reality of choice.